The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On May 27, 2017, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol at around 03:00, driven CM3 automobiles at the entrance of a public parking lot in front of B in Jeju, from around about 20 meters to the parking zone parking line at the parking lot at the parking lot, at around 0 meters.

2. The finding of guilt in a criminal trial ought to be based on evidence with probative value, which makes it possible for a judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Unless there is such proof, even if there is no doubt of guilt against the defendant, the conviction cannot be judged as guilty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8675, Mar. 9, 2006). Of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor that corresponds to the fact that the defendant driven at drinking at the time and place indicated in the above facts charged is admissible for witness D’s legal statement, traffic accident occurrence report, vehicle accident summary report, accident summary report, drinking driving control report, inquiry into the situation of the principal driver, investigation report, report on the investigation (main driver report), report on the handling of reported cases, on site photograph, on-site photograph, and on the actual condition of

According to the above evidence, the defendant was trying to drive a substitute driver after drinking, and the substitute driver D parked the vehicle at the place where the defendant instructed, while giving the defendant the key to the vehicle (Provided, That the substitute driver D parked the vehicle at the parking lot in the apartment lot far far away from the place where the defendant started to drive alcohol, such as the above facts charged, in this court, as stated in the above facts charged.

(B) After this, the Defendant was found to have been divingd from the driver’s seat in the public parking lot B prior to Jeju, which is the place indicated in the facts charged, and the alcohol concentration was measured as a result of the alcohol alcohol measurement as indicated in the facts charged. However, the fact of the recognition alone alone is that the Defendant driven from the entrance of the public parking lot at the public parking lot to the parking lot.